[ADVOCACY] A brief history of climate studies

The problem is that the beginning of instrumental temperature measurements in 1850 coincided with the end of the coldest period since the last ice age.A natural warming (recovery from the coldest period)began in 1850.It continues until today caused most likely by a prevalence of Sunspots.(which recently ended,so we will be entering a cold period)
Why did temp rise in 1850 before the industrial age?
Its because the rise has nothing to do with CO2.Its a natural recovery from a cold period due to a lack of Sunspots.

The second mistake is that CO2 will cause an increase in water vapor.Pure BS.More likely water vapor compensates for any minuscule warming caused by CO2.
I can 100% prove this theory is BS because every Climate Computer Model based on this theory has been vastly incorrect for the past 20 years.

But its a great excuse for politicians and Goldman Sachs to tax a proposed $3- 4 TRILLION per year to the UN.
With gullible idiots demanding to be taxed.(brainwashed by gullible reporters at NYT and PBS who believe lying activist scientists,both medias I respect on other issues)
Im a lifelong Democrat.But I realize the Dems and Dem funded $multi million scientists are wrong and are paid to lie on this issue.
I despise Trump.
I think hes nuts.
But the Orange Mussolini is correct on this one issue.China is the only country which benefits economically.I cant imagine why the Rothchilds and Bilderbergs want China to be the economic success of the 21st century.But thats the design.
Lindzen is calling for a defunding of climate science.
$80 Billion over the past 20 years has caused climate scientists to lie only to receive funding.

 

From 1850 to 1900, T was pretty flat. CO2 increase was pretty small, sunspot numbers decreased.

From 1900 to 1950, T increased. CO2 increase was more, sunspot numbers increased.

From 1950 to 2000, T increase was similar to previous 50 yrs, CO2 increase was greater still, sunspot numbers were flat.

Since 2000 (a shorter interval), T increase, CO2 increase, sunspot decrease.

The above intervals were chosen for no particular reason. If there were a was to compare these 3 trends (T, CO2, sunspot number) that makes SSN look like a better predictor of T than CO2, I don't know what it is.

+++
I agree that thermometer records are much more sparse before 1850. There we rely more on T proxies. They certainly indicate that 1850 was cooler. Mojo calls this a natural warming, which is not quite a mechanism. What goes down must come up?

???

Anyway, CO2 absorption of infrared energy is a completely natural process. So, OK I guess.

+++
Water vapor has increased, but not by much. Warmer sea surface, Clausius-Clapeyron does its best, but more rain also falls. I agree that amplification of CO2 warming by water vapor is possibly overstated. But they are certainly not working in opposite ways.

+++
3-4 trillion/year sure sounds scary. Lots of things that aren't happening sound scary though.

+++
Pay people millions to lie eh? For someone who views (this part of) science in this way, it must really rankle to not get paid for lying.

But no, it's not you lying. Just being disinterested in observations and analyses.

+++
China economic success is not assured, but it will come in part from non-CO2 energy production, electric vehicles, stuff like that. Reducing US sci/tech funding would solidify that advantage. What an odd thing for USA! to hope for...

 

For me this is a real easy question to answer.
You just do a quick cost/benefit guesstimate in your head (this assumes, of course, that you have a few functioning brain cells).

IF......the climate change scientists turn out to be wrong 50 or 100 years down the road, no REAL harm has been done. Wasting a little money really is NOT a big problem.

IF......the deniers turn out to be wrong and they succeed in deflecting attention and money and efforts away from what really needs to be done, then 50 or 100 or 150 years down the road........the plant might become un-inhabitable.

Which gamble to YOU want to take ?? Seems pretty obvious to me.
And you can make this call without knowing any of the details of what either side is saying.

 

Energy efficiency in all its forms saves money. Reductions in 'non-CO2' combustion byproducts do so as well, to the extent their health costs are understood (and believed). These and other similar benefits seem hard to oppose.

Yet they are opposed, at least slow-boated, by linkage to CO2. If that were not amazing enough it becomes more so by linkage with global conspiracies. So much noise, apparently linked with a desire to replay the 20th century. Instead of doing 21st differently as seems obviously necessary in terms of needs for more food/water/energy.

We get sucked into this here at PriusChat, like almost everywhere else. It's pretty amazing if one steps back and regards the situation.

 

"One panel shows the global temperature anomalies from 1895-1946 (pre CO2 rise). The other shows the anomalies from 1957-2008. Both cover 52 years. Both are plotted to an identical scale."

 

Well fortunately Orange Mussolini has one thing right.
Look at Australia who has had blackouts because their wind power is unreliable.Look at Germany where power costs 300 % what it costs in the USA.Theres hundreds of thousands of German households with no power because they cant afford it.Germany wants to be lacking in energy like India.
Alternative energy is intermittent which means its not reliable.Power in Germany costs 3x as much as the USA,its not affordable.
It has to cost at least twice as much because you still need a fossil fuel or nuke plant running at idle to back up the intermittent Solar Wind.
"No real harm" You are talking about hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars flushed down the toilet over a 100 years. And a real loss of competitiveness with China whom has no CO2 requirements .

 

First, those dollars spent go SOMEWHERE and somebody benefits.

Second, over a period of much less than 100 years evidence should mount pushing the scale firmly one way or another.

So it sounds like you would prefer to accumulate dollars rather than have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. ?
Or maybe you think that your dollars can buy YOU out of the pollution and the poor people can go pound sand ??

If it ends up that there IS run-away warming, you can wipe your behind with your dollars........because they won't save it from frying right along with everybody else.

 

CO2 is not a pollutant.Its a vital food for plants which thrive on more abundance of it.
Money wasted on taxing it could be used for something productive.
Like ending world hunger,providing clean water, provide power to those without.Cure cancer cure AIDs
You think the Trillions spent are productive because youre brainwashed to believe the fake science.
The science is fake for one reason ,to get the Trillions $

 

The stuff emitting CO2 are also emitting other stuff that is harmful to us and the environment.

 

Then eliminate the other stuff.Dont waste trillions hunting unicorns.

 

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Fake science.....fake news......it's "fake" only because you choose not to believe it.

 

I'm sorry. Sometimes the temptation is just too great.

You can sometimes win an argument with a genius; you can NEVER win an argument with a moron.